November 10, 2021
25.4.190
Background
The grievor was residing at post in City A, Country M, with their dependants prior to being evacuated due to COVID-19. The Employer, Department X, issued an emergency evacuation order for all employees residing at post on March 16, 2020. Following this order, the employee and their dependants returned to Canada on March 18, 2020. Shortly after, on March 25, 2020, the employee submitted an accountable advance of $5,500 through the FSD Portal. This request was denied, and the employee was informed that an itemized list with cost estimates was required. Following the Employer’s instructions, the employee resubmitted an accountable advance request on April 24, 2020. On May 4, 2020, the Employer informed the employee that the request was not approved “at this time”, and as a result, the request was returned to the employee, rather than being denied. Informal discussions between the Employer and Bargaining Agent were initiated on May 19, 2020. The grievance was filed on June 30, 2020.
Grievance
The employee is grieving the Employer’s refusal to provide them with an accountable advance as per FSD 64.5.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent (BA) representative began their presentation by going over the timeline of events that led to the grievance and the sequence of events that have taken place since the grievance was filed. The BA representative referenced FSD 64.5.1 which reads “the deputy head may authorize one or more accountable advances to replace essential items of household effects, clothing or children's toys…”. The representative indicated that the BA acknowledges the use of the word “may” but believes the Employer did not reasonably exercise discretion when declining the grievor’s request.
Following this, the BA representative specifically referenced the second level reply from the Employer that indicated the grievor was being treated within the same standards as the other evacuees and as such, the grievance and corrective measure were denied. The BA representative indicated that they believe this blanket application of FSD 64.5 goes against the core intent of the Directive, as different situations would require different perspectives and possibly different outcomes.
The BA representative noted that:
- the evacuation order was issued on March 16, 2020;
- on March 17, 2020 an email from the embassy stated they were arranging the flights for the grievor and their family;
- on March 18, 2020, the grievor was informed that they and their family (including pets) were scheduled for a flight on March 21, 2020, but other options will be considered;
- on March 18, 2020, the grievor received another email from the embassy informing them that the flight changed, requiring their family to board a plane later that same day. Additionally, the BA representative noted that on the day of travel, the taxi pick-up time changed (was advanced), allowing the grievor and their family only a few hours to pack.
Based on these facts, the BA representative indicated that although the evacuation order did allow for excess baggage, the grievor did not have enough time to pack all essential items, as well as did not have enough space to pack all essential items, making it impossible for the grievor to pack excess baggage.
The BA representative concluded their presentation by stating the BA submits that the Employer’s application of FSD 64.5 was not exercised with proper discretion and that the Employer’s decision put an unexpected financial burden on the grievor. As such, the BA representative does not believe the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive and asked that the corrective measures be granted.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative began their presentation by stating an evacuation order was issued on March 16, 2020, for all employees due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The representative noted that the evacuation order advised employees to pack as many essential items as possible, as extra baggage will be approved up to the airline limit. Additionally, the representative noted that the grievor confirmed receipt of the evacuation order on March 17, 2020.
The Departmental representative indicated that the first accountable advance request submitted by the grievor totaled approximately $12,000, which was much higher than the approved limit of $5,500. Regarding the blanket application of the Directive, the representative explained that the department had been applying a strict definition of what was being considered as “essential items”, given that employees were informed of the evacuation in advance, that employees were instructed to pack excess baggage and that employees were expected to start packing as soon as they received the evacuation order. It was further explained that given the high volume of request being received, the department wanted to ensure a common approach was being administered across all departments to remain consistent.
The Departmental representative then noted that on April 28, 2020, discussions between the Department and DND took place, which resulted in the decision to provide the grievor with reimbursement for some of the items (car seats) on the submitted list. The representative continued by stating that following the grievance hearing in October 2020, the Department also decided to provide reimbursement for a few more items on the list, namely pillows and air filters. The representative specifically noted that the Department has requested an updated list from the grievor, which they still have not received. It was noted that following approval to reimburse the grievor for the above-mentioned items, $3,500 of the allowable $5,500 for accountable advances remains.
The Departmental representative drew attention to the wording of FSD 64.5 and noted the use of the word “may”. The Departmental representative stated that FSD 64.5 is intended for situation where employees must evacuate immediately and was not intended for evacuation as large as the March 2020 COVID-19 related evacuation.
Lastly, the Departmental representative stated that the Mission provided the grievor with the option to leave their pets at post as they would have been taken care of. After this statement, the representative noted that they believe it was the grievor’s personal choice to take the pets and therefore not have as much room to pack essential items.
The Departmental representative concluded their presentation by stating they believe the Department acted in accordance with FSD 64.5 and that the grievor was therefore treated within the intent of the Directive.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee and noted that it could not reach a consensus on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the FSD. The Executive Committee was unable to reach a consensus on this issue either. As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse. The Executive Committee did however note and agreed with the Foreign Service Directives Committee’s observation that the Department should have issued an advance and not required proof of purchase.